Telling It Like It Is
The total inadequacy, coupled with the righteous indignation of the Canadian Auto Workers in presenting their final agreement to surrender a few insignificant gains in workers' salaries, making slight cuts to the endowments of the autoworkers pensioners, ante-ing up a few dollars per month for health and dental insurance hardly represents the wrenching sacrifice the union executive rails against.
That tortuous surrender of 'benefits' and salary expectations so grudgingly arrived at as the over-compensated auto workers' part in making the effort to persuade the Government of Canada, along with General Motors' worthless pledge to pay back the billions to be handed over to it, with absolutely no surety of collateral represents a weak argument for government rescue.
All the more so since General Motors has been warned by its own auditors that bankruptcy appears inevitable. And poof! there goes the automaker, leaving Canada with nothing but regrets that more billions of taxpayer monies have been thrown to the winds of doubtful chance. We're not all that addicted, as a society to gambling.
As for the autoworkers' inability to see the writing on the wall, and choosing to bend slightly to the winds of need, the stark contrast of being heartily salaried in the recent past to the new reality of unemployment will surely bring them back into the real world. They'd like to keep their jobs, who wouldn't, particularly the kind of employment that is so handsomely remunerated?
Trouble is, they're manufacturing a product that, at the best of economic times, isn't competitive with carmakers like Honda, Toyota and Subaru. Potential purchasers remaining stubbornly loyal to the U.S. automakers may permit them to hobble along a little longer, but 'a little longer' is the operative here.
This is a time of economic downturn, people worrying about losing employment, and vast other numbers of Canadians newly unemployed. People aren't enthused about committing to big-ticket purchases. And the inventory of 2008, 2009 and 2010 models cluttering up showrooms and car lots are clogging up the system.
Who, in their right minds, is going to continue manufacturing, why should they, why should we pay for them to do that? And finally, people are quite simply fed up with being saddled with an inferior product when for the same price they can avail themselves of a product that is better engineered, more reliable and holds its value.
And then in comes struggling Chrysler Canada to testify before the Members of Parliament tasked with forming the House of Commons industry committee to hear out these humble pleas for assistance and to advise the prime minister and the minister of industry. They, at least, haven't sought to sugar-coat their crisis.
While they're prepared to continue producing in Windsor and Toronto, and to put their factories up as collateral, it'll take a whole lot more than what the Autoworkers' Union has committed itself to sacrificing, and a whole lot more than government initially pledged to ensure they stick around in Canada.
Chrysler's president claims his company's labour cost "all in" comes in at $75 an hour in Canada, about $20 more than its competitors, so for starts, Chrysler insists autoworkers have to be prepared to accept a $20 hourly cut in pay. The health-insurance advantage that once made Canada such an attractive place to produce is now moot, given the recent American Auto Workers' union agreement.
"We have to close the gap", Tom Lasorda explained. "As a corporation with manufacturing operations in multiple jurisdictions, we cannot afford to manufacture products in jurisdictions that are not competitive." Hear that, Ken Lewenza? - already on record as bemoaning the difficulty in accepting the slight wages and benefits rollbacks.
And it'll take three times the original amount recommended by government to offer to Chrysler, something in the neighbourhood of $2.3-billion before they'll be prepared to talk business. At least they're up-front and honest, more than can be said for General Motors, at the very least. And there's collateral, for whatever that will be worth. Transform the unused factories to personal heli-lift devices?
And then there's the still-successful automakers like Toyota, still selling cars, but experiencing their own set-backs in slowed-down auto sales. They're talking government relief in sales tax breaks for consumer stimulation, and government backed credit boosts. Reminiscent (albeit in reverse) of the government of Japan once insisting on regular vehicle up-dates so costly that the Japanese just took to buying new cars every other year.
A better idea is for everyone to chill out, sit back, wait for things to settle. Those automakers whose abysmal record of producing inferior products have proven they shouldn't be in the business if they can't see their way to competitiveness in quality production. And as the economy returns to normal, so will the business of car sales.
That tortuous surrender of 'benefits' and salary expectations so grudgingly arrived at as the over-compensated auto workers' part in making the effort to persuade the Government of Canada, along with General Motors' worthless pledge to pay back the billions to be handed over to it, with absolutely no surety of collateral represents a weak argument for government rescue.
All the more so since General Motors has been warned by its own auditors that bankruptcy appears inevitable. And poof! there goes the automaker, leaving Canada with nothing but regrets that more billions of taxpayer monies have been thrown to the winds of doubtful chance. We're not all that addicted, as a society to gambling.
As for the autoworkers' inability to see the writing on the wall, and choosing to bend slightly to the winds of need, the stark contrast of being heartily salaried in the recent past to the new reality of unemployment will surely bring them back into the real world. They'd like to keep their jobs, who wouldn't, particularly the kind of employment that is so handsomely remunerated?
Trouble is, they're manufacturing a product that, at the best of economic times, isn't competitive with carmakers like Honda, Toyota and Subaru. Potential purchasers remaining stubbornly loyal to the U.S. automakers may permit them to hobble along a little longer, but 'a little longer' is the operative here.
This is a time of economic downturn, people worrying about losing employment, and vast other numbers of Canadians newly unemployed. People aren't enthused about committing to big-ticket purchases. And the inventory of 2008, 2009 and 2010 models cluttering up showrooms and car lots are clogging up the system.
Who, in their right minds, is going to continue manufacturing, why should they, why should we pay for them to do that? And finally, people are quite simply fed up with being saddled with an inferior product when for the same price they can avail themselves of a product that is better engineered, more reliable and holds its value.
And then in comes struggling Chrysler Canada to testify before the Members of Parliament tasked with forming the House of Commons industry committee to hear out these humble pleas for assistance and to advise the prime minister and the minister of industry. They, at least, haven't sought to sugar-coat their crisis.
While they're prepared to continue producing in Windsor and Toronto, and to put their factories up as collateral, it'll take a whole lot more than what the Autoworkers' Union has committed itself to sacrificing, and a whole lot more than government initially pledged to ensure they stick around in Canada.
Chrysler's president claims his company's labour cost "all in" comes in at $75 an hour in Canada, about $20 more than its competitors, so for starts, Chrysler insists autoworkers have to be prepared to accept a $20 hourly cut in pay. The health-insurance advantage that once made Canada such an attractive place to produce is now moot, given the recent American Auto Workers' union agreement.
"We have to close the gap", Tom Lasorda explained. "As a corporation with manufacturing operations in multiple jurisdictions, we cannot afford to manufacture products in jurisdictions that are not competitive." Hear that, Ken Lewenza? - already on record as bemoaning the difficulty in accepting the slight wages and benefits rollbacks.
And it'll take three times the original amount recommended by government to offer to Chrysler, something in the neighbourhood of $2.3-billion before they'll be prepared to talk business. At least they're up-front and honest, more than can be said for General Motors, at the very least. And there's collateral, for whatever that will be worth. Transform the unused factories to personal heli-lift devices?
And then there's the still-successful automakers like Toyota, still selling cars, but experiencing their own set-backs in slowed-down auto sales. They're talking government relief in sales tax breaks for consumer stimulation, and government backed credit boosts. Reminiscent (albeit in reverse) of the government of Japan once insisting on regular vehicle up-dates so costly that the Japanese just took to buying new cars every other year.
A better idea is for everyone to chill out, sit back, wait for things to settle. Those automakers whose abysmal record of producing inferior products have proven they shouldn't be in the business if they can't see their way to competitiveness in quality production. And as the economy returns to normal, so will the business of car sales.
Labels: Canada, Crisis Politics, Economy
posted by Pieface | 5:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home